THE

MONTHLY REVIEW,

For APRIL, 1758.

A Compleat Hiftory of England, deduced from the Defcent of Julius Cæfar, to the Treaty of Aix la Chapelle, 1748. Containing the Tranfactions of One Thousand Eight Hundred and Three Years. By T. Smollet, M. D. Vol. IV. 4to. Ri vington and Fletcher.

S many able pens have been employed in expatiating on the ufe of Hiftory, and afcertaining the requifite qualifications of an Hiftorian, it will be needlefs to enlarge on thofe general heads, which have been already so amply difcuffed.

But, though the general accomplishments of an Hiftorian have been frequently enumerated and explained, yet we are of opinion, that fome particular requifites have not been fufficient ly recommended and enforced. Learning, knowlege, difcernment, folidity, and difcretion, are previous endownients withbut which no man fhould affume the office of an Hiftorical Writer. But to these conftituent qualifications he should unite the requifite duties of an Hiftorian, and exercise his talents with care, accuracy, and impartiality.

Of our later Hiftorians fome have been little better than labo rious Compilers; others no more than random Effayifts. A Hiftory which is only a circumftantial narrative of facts, without reflections upon them, may be only regarded as a file of Newspapers: and one that abounds with reflections, without due attention to facts, differs little from a romance or a novel.

VOL. XVIII.

U

An

An Hiftorian fhould be careful to omit no incident of moment. Yet he ought not, therefore, to content himself with a meer relation of events; but wherever they appear to be generally interesting, he fhould offer his obfervations upon them, apply his difcernment to trace the causes which produced them, and exhibit the confequences which flowed from them.

He should particularly exert this faculty in his account of any remarkable alteration in the laws of the country he treats of. It behoves him to state what the law was at the time of the change, and to fhew the effects produced by the variation. He ought not, however, to indulge a fondness for expatiating too far, left it fhould infenfibly withdraw his mind from a due attention to the chain of historical facts. It is neceffary, therefore, that his judgment fhould be greater than his imagination; otherwise he will be tempted to employ his powers in the vain glow of colouring, and will be more ftudious to dazzle the imagination with a gaudy difplay of fplendid fentiments, and pompous phrafeology, than to engage the understanding by just reasoning, and folid reflections. He ought to remember, that in History, Ornament should be but a fecondary confideration; and that the firft and principal requifite, is Utility.

A History should not be calculated, like a novel, only to entertain us in the perufal, and then to be thrown afide, or configned to oblivion; but ought rather to be a faithful repofitory of interesting events, to be occafionally referred to for the purposes of information and inftruction. An Hiftorian, therefore, fhould be more folicitous to fay what is just and authentic, than what is brilliant and striking.

He ought, above all things, to avoid hafte. Hurry is the worst excuse which any Writer can make to atone for his defects: but in an Hiftorian it is more especially inexcufable. A History is not to be wrote Sians pede in uno and if we should: fee one start up within a compafs of time too fhort for a diligent Collator even to compare the various authorities referred to, we may then conclude that the Writer has taken his matter upon credit.

It should be the firft office of an Hiftorian, attentively to read the several authorities from whence he intends to extract his materials. But yet it is not fufficient that he produces authority for what he advances; he should exert his fagacity to determine the degree of credibility due to the Writers from whom he draws his extracts he should make himfeif acquainted with their country, their principles, and the age they lived in. The knowlege of these particulars, may enable him to reconcile their contradictory.

contradictory evidence, and to develope truth from the clouds of national and party prejudice.

Having formed his judgment of the authenticity of their feveral relations, his next care fhould be accurately to digeft and arrange the various matter he has collected. For want of this caution, Hiftories are frequently rendered obfcure: for it often happens, that different Writers relate the fame circumstances under different periods of time, by which means the Compiler, who turns from one to the other, without comparing them together, and digefting his extracts, is frequently led into perplexing obfcurities, idle repetitions, and inexcufable anachronilms.

An Historian, above all other Writers, fhould think for himfelf. He should, as far as poffible, banish from his mind all prejudices imbibed by education, or received from reading or difcourfe. It is not fufficient that he is of no party; he should write as if he was of no country. He ought to be careful to draw no inferences but what are warranted by the premises he has related; and fhould ground no conclufions on the foundation of public report.

It has been an ufual failing in many Hiftorians to be more particularly minute and circumftantial in their detail of military, than of civil tranfactions. They will acquaint us how an army was marshalled, and relate every particular evolution, as if their Hiftory was calculated only for the perufal of Generals, and Drill-Serjeants; but in their accounts of civil proceedings, they frequently haften to the event, without taking notice of any ihtermediate circumftances. They think it fufficient to tell us, that fuch or fuch a treaty was made, without fpecifying any of the material articles it contained, fhewing how it contributed to ftrengthen or diminish the intereft of the contracting Parties, or making any mention of the intrigues which were used to promote or impede the conclufion of it. This is an inexcufable error: for the civil concerns of past times, are more generally interefting than the military operations.

In the fame manner they often hurry over important trials, and debates, contenting themselves with barely ftating the decifion; which can give little fatisfaction to reflecting Readers, who will be curious to learn the reafons and arguments that were offered to warrant the determination. Some, who ftate the arguments, often represent them partially, and repeat thofe only which were urged on one fide of the question: which manifeftly fhews, that they are guided by the blind zeal of prejudice, inftead of being governed by the fincere love of truth.

The pourtraying of Characters, is a talk on which Hiftorians

U 2

generally

generally lavish all their powers. Common Readers are more curious about perfons, than things; and Writers who are more folicitous to gain the applaufe of the multitude, than the approbation of the judicious, endeavour to adapt their writings to the ftandard of popular tafte. In defcribing characters, they give way to an implicit faith, and unbounded fancy. They do not fcruple to fum up every quality, which idle report, partial attachment, or prejudiced malice, has imputed to the perfonage they are delineating; which they feldom fail to embellish with all the decorations that their own imagination can fupply. They generally fall into a fondnefs for Antithefis, and, in the end, make their general account give the lie to the particulars they have related in the courfe of their Hiftory. Their motley characters may, with little alteration, be adapted to any perfons whatfoever; or be diftributed into lots, and drawn at random. But a careful and judicious Hiftorian will make no inferences, nor confer any qualities, which are not warranted by the particular circumstances premifed. He will draw from the original before him, and not from his own imagination.

In fhort, Truth should be the object of the Hiftorian's enquiry; Difcernment fhould guide his refearches; Judgment warrant his conclufions; Candour direct his reflections; and Elegance of Stile adorn his compofition.

Let us now examine how far the Hiftorian before us is endowed with the requifite qualifications, and with what degree of diligence he has performed the duties incumbent upon him. If he thall appear to have been deficient, his defects will be the more unpardonable, as he feems to be mafter of natural abili ties, which, with a proper fhare of application, would have enabled him to have acquited himself with credit: and however men may pride themselves upon their genius, there is certainly more merit in a fingle grain of acquired knowlege, than in the largest portion of native talents. For the latter, we are indebted to nature, but what we gain by our industry, we may challenge as our own.

In a former Review, we have given an account of the three preceding volumes of this work; which contained little more than a brief narrative of facts, in which the Author affected to avoid all difquifitions as ufelefs. In the volume before us, however, he appears to have altered his mind, and is very liberal of his obfervations, which makes it neceffary for us to be more particular in our examination.

See Review for June 1757, page 530.

This fourth volume opens with an enumeration of omiffions* at the time of the revolution, in which, according to his practice throughout, he confounds his own reflections with thofe he has adopted from authority. The maxim,' he fays, of hereditary indefeafible right, was at length renounced by a free Parliament. From this expreffion we are led to conclude, that this was the firft inftance of any public renunciation of that doctrine; but, if we are not miftaken, this maxim, however avowed by a few flavish individuals, was never adopted by a free Parliament; on the contrary, it has always been oppofed by Parliament, and has been frequently renounced in the moft folemn manner, If we recur to the form of the Coronation of King John, and many of our former Kings, we fhall there find exprefs ftipulations against the claim of Hereditary Right†.

In his account of the trials of Sir John Friend and Sir William Perkins, for treafon, in confpiring against King William's life, this Writer does not appear to have obferved the strictest impartiality. He fays, that Lord-chief-juftice Holt declared, that although a bare confpiracy or defign to levy war, was ⚫ not treafon within the ftatute of Edward III. yet, if the defign or confpiracy be to kill, or depofe, or imprison the King, by the means of levying war, then the confultation and confpiracy to levy war becomes high-treafon, though no war be actually levied The fame inference, our Hiftorian obferves, might have been drawn against the authors and inftruments of the Revolution.

In his reflections on thefe trials, which he has borrowed, almost verbatim, from Mr. Ralph, he has copied that Writer's fevere animadverfions on Lord-chief-juftice Holt, without doing the fame previous juftice to his character: and he has added, that the Judge acted as Counfel for the Crown. Yet notwithftanding thefe harfh imputations, that worthy Judge does not appear to have exceeded, or violated, the duty of his office. As to his Declaration, it was confonant with the opinion of able Judges, his predeceffors. Hiftory will inform us, that a

* Our Hiflorian has remarked, in the words of Somers, that the Patriots at the Revolution, were guilty of many omiffions, in not fufficiently circumfcribing the power of the Crown. He blames them, in particular, for leaving the King fall power over Parliaments, over Corporations, over the Militia, &c. as the Reader may fee more at large, by turning to the Hiftory.

In the reign of Charles the fecond, about the 1682, a very fenfible treatife was wrote against Hereditary Right, entitled, The Rights of the Kingdom, or Cuftoms of our Ancestors. This tract, which is extremely fcarce, contains fome curious obfervations in antiquity.